XXX rejected by ICANN again

In what, at long last, looks like the final nail in the Coffin of .XXX, the ICANN board has once again rejected the establishment of a .xxx top level domain (sTLD). The vote was 9-5 with a single abstention, that of CEO Paul Twomey.

As I have said many time on this site, to the point of sounding like a broken record, I have been against the creation of this domain from the start, as its purpose is to make money for the Registrar and to force those trying to protect their brand to shell out for another needless domain. For this reason I have also been against .mobi, .museum, .travel etc. That said, I remain unconvinced that .XXX should not have been given the all clear. It long ago meet all the technical and financial requirements that other new sTLDs met and should frankly then been a matter – as in the other cases – of being rubber stamped.

So, I’m left in the strange position of being happy that the domain was rejected, but worried that the decision was not made for the right reasons or in the manner that previous ICANN decisions have been.

For an excellent – inside take – on the decision, and for her own reasons for supporting the .xxx domain, Professor Susan Crawford’s blog is an essential read [ Susan is a member of the ICANN Board] She calls the resolution adopted by the Board (rejecting xxx) “both weak and unprincipled”. As she concludes: “I continue to be dissatisfied with elements of the proposed xxx contract, including but not limited to the “rapid takedown” provision of Appendix S which is manifestly designed to placate trademark owners and ignores the many due process concerns that have been expressed about the existing UDRP. I am confident that if I had a staff or enough time I could find many things to carp about in this draft contract. But I am certain that if I complained about these terms my concerns would be used to justify derailing this application for political reasons. I plan, therefore, to turn my attention to the new gTLD process that was promised for January 2007 (a promise that has not been kept) in hopes that we will someday have a standard contract and objective process that can help ICANN avoid engaging in unjustifiable ad hoc actions. We should be examining generic TLD applicants on the basis of their technical and financial strength, and we should avoid dealing with “content” concerns to the maximum extent possible. We should be opening up new TLDs. I hope we will find a way to achieve such a sound process in short order”